1 Introduction

Socioscientific issues (SSI) are a conceptual framework within the community of science education researchers and practitioners that is used to guide theory, research, and practice with the aim of fostering scientific literacy (Zeidler, 2014). This triple aim makes the concept difficult to fully grasp, and SSI will have different meanings depending on whether theory, research, or practice is at the forefront. SSI has become an important and integral part of science education curricula, pedagogy, and research worldwide in recent decades (Evagorou & Dillon, 2020; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023). This is also evidenced by the increasing number of research publications addressing SSI (Zeidler & Sadler, 2023). In addition, several reviews on different aspects of SSI research have been conducted over the years (e.g., Çalık & Wiyarsi, 2021; Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e406">2021; Chowdhury et al., 2020; Fang et al., 2019; Karışan & Zeidler, 2017; Nielsen, 2020; Sadler, 2004, 2009; Zeidler, 2014; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023). As such, the field of SSI has been fairly well explored in the research literature and has mostly been found to be a successful route to promoting scientific literacy (Zeidler & Sadler, 2023). However, many of these reviews conclude that the implementation or enactment of SSI in practice is largely lacking and that “Teaching SSIs remains a challenge in science education.” (Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e437">2021, p. 2). Why is this?

According to Zeidler and Sadler (2023), the most likely reason is that SSI is rooted in a progressive teaching tradition dating back to the ideas of Dewey (1908), and they conclude that:

“At the root of this is the fact that traditional school contexts tend to present science as a unified front of positivistic knowledge and unshakable truth, which is unaffected by sociocultural or other contextual factors. In contrast, progressive stances on science teaching through SSI are more nuanced, context-based, and socially- and culturally embedded.” (Zeidler & Sadler, 2023, p. 905).

Consequently, SSI teaching has different objectives compared with more traditional science teaching, where applying science in society—rather than learning about science—is central (Hodson, 2014). In addition, the scientific content, the topic, has a different focus in SSI, focusing on controversial issues with no easy answers incorporating aspects of values and ethics rather than scientific concepts, as is the case in traditional science (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Finally, due to the different objectives and topics, the methods of teaching SSI focus on authentic practices related to how science is applied in society—such as inquiry, argumentation, and role playing—rather than how it is learned in the scientific community through laboratory work, modeling, and other scientific practices (Sadler, 2009; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).

In a recent review of the literature on teachers’ enactment of SSI, Nielsen et al. (2020) argues that the reason SSI is not being taught is due to its absence in teacher education, and concludes that “the field of science education is still on the search for a viable way to place an emphasis on SSI-teaching in teacher education programmes in a way that really enables teachers to bring SSI into their future classrooms” (Nielsen, 2020, p. 15). These conclusions are in line with our Swedish experience, in which science teachers find it difficult to fully grasp SSI or teach about SSI (Skolforskningsintitutet 2022). There seems to be an implementation gap between the science education research literature—where SSI is outlined based on theoretical and research perspectives—and teaching practice. To meet the needs of teachers, we have undertaken an overview of the objectives, science topics, and teaching methods that can be used to implement SSI in their teaching practice. To our knowledge, there is no such comprehensive systematic review in the literature. Therefore, this study aims to address this implementation gap by conducting a systematic review of how SSI is described in studies of teaching and learning in science education research to provide a map of SSI objectives, topics, and methods.

2 Aim and Research Questions

The aim of this study is to define and describe how SSI as a pedagogical approach is characterized in studies of teaching and learning in science education research. In order to provide as a realistic and practical description as possible, one that can be translated into classroom practice, we have limited the study to a review of studies that have examined SSI in the school context. We argue that the most developed examples of SSI practice are to be found in studies of teaching and learning, where SSI has been developed and evaluated from a scientific point of view and subsequently subjected to peer review. From the selected articles, we conducted a systematic review of how SSI was represented in these studies in relation to the three central teaching and learning questions of “why,” “what,” and “how” regarding teaching SSI. The specific research questions that guide this study in the analysis of the enacted SSI are:

  1. 1.

    What are the objectives of SSI teaching?

  2. 2.

    What topics are covered in SSI teaching?

  3. 3.

    What methods are used in SSI teaching?

3 Background

Previous research shows that the incorporation of SSI in science education practice has progressed over time. The emergence of SSI as a pedagogical approach, emphasizing the interconnectedness of science, technology, society, and the environment, acknowledges the role of SSI in promoting scientific literacy, decision-making skills, and citizenship among students.

3.1 The Rationale for SSI in Science Education Practice

Over the last century, a premise has evolved in the science education community of researchers and practitioners that teaching in primary and secondary education is not about teaching more and more content, but rather teaching students in a way that they achieve an informed understanding of the consequences of scientific developments on society, and making sure that they are able to become members of society with the ability to make insightful decisions on these matters (Karışan & Zeidler, 2017). This development has been visible in various movements aimed at contextualizing science as citizenship knowledge rather than as professional knowledge. Gallagher (1971) introduced the idea that science education practice should include concepts, processes, and relationships across the spheres of science, technology, and society (STS). The STS movement late incorporated an emphasis on the environment and became STSE, which has now been part of the science education research discourse for more than 45 years (Bencze et al., 2020). The overriding idea has been to view science education research in a holistic way that focuses on relationships between science, technology, society, and the environment. This movement has evolved over the past few decades into a more specific approach to science education in theory, research, and practice, referred to more broadly as SSIFootnote 1 (Sadler, 2004).

In the literature, there is an agreement that SSI should foster the development of scientific literacy (Zeidler, 2014). More specifically, this refers to functional scientific literacy, i.e., the ability to apply scientific concepts in real-world contexts (Ryder, 2001). This perspective has also been described as a Vision II perspective on scientific literacy, that is, to be able to make personal decisions about contextually embedded scientific and social issues (Roberts, 2011). In close connection to this aim, SSI has also been described as a way to promote citizenship or citizenry (Chowdhury et al., 2020). Extensive variation exists regarding how to describe or define SSI in the literature.

The literature on SSI is rich in science education research, as pointed out earlier, but there exists no clear-cut definition of how to demarcate the concept. Zeidler, in Bencze et al. (2020, p. 832–836), points out that what constitutes SSI can be understood from ontological, epistemological, and pedagogical perspectives. In this study, we focus on the latter, the pedagogical perspective of SSI. As argued by Zeidler, the ontology of SSI varies with context, and over time. He claims that the ontology of SSI should be understood based on the unique zeitgeist in which it is embedded. SSI is experienced and interpreted personally and understood within the cultural norms of a unique temporal human condition. Nevertheless, Zeidler (2014) identifies four ideal and universal characteristics of the epistemological perspective of SSI which seem to be generally understood, although minor variation might exist, depending on the particular zeitgeist:

  • “Utilise personally relevant, controversial and ill-structured problems that require scientific, evidence-based reasoning to inform decisions about such topics.

  • Employ the use of scientific topics with social ramifications that require students to engage in dialogue, discussion, debate and argumentation.

  • Integrate implicit and/or explicit ethical components that require some degree of moral reasoning.

  • Emphasise the formation of virtue and character as long-range pedagogical goals” (Zeidler, 2014, p. 699).

These attributes constitute the epistemology of SSI but can act as drivers for the development of SSI pedagogy. However, due to this transformation, Zeidler points out that “Such [SSI] practices vary but are likely to share certain characteristics” (Zeidler, in Bencze et al., 2020, p. 835). This variation is not captured in previous research and is the aim of our study. What we can say is common for SSI pedagogy is that it relies on progressive educational ideals. Sadler (2009), in a seminal review, outlined how SSI is grounded in situated learning and in the importance of authenticity. The activities in SSI teaching should not be done for their own sake, but each learning activity should be positioned in a relevant context (Sadler, 2009). Often in science education practice, this context is supposed to mirror that of scientific practices, but in SSI teaching, the imagined context one draws from is related more to social contexts in society rather than to the scientific laboratory. This change of community of practice that SSI pedagogy draws upon is important for learning objectives and the scientific content being taught, as well as for the teaching methods being used. Hence, the purpose of SSI-informed education is more related to develo** competencies and decision-making rather than improving conceptual knowledge (Zeidler, 2014). The science content—i.e., the topic—more often stems from controversial contemporary scientific applications such as genetically modified organisms (GMO) and climate change rather than basic scientific concepts such as chemical bonding or optics, and the teaching methods more often mirror social practices such as argumentation and role play rather than scientific practices like controlled experiments and modeling. In this way, SSI as a pedagogical approach will differ from what students and teachers are accustomed to (Nielsen et al., 2020).

Pulling from theory, Zeidler and Sadler (2008) and Zeidler (2014) have described progressive instructional paradigms and their associated outcomes in SSI pedagogy. The focus of education is on responsibility, its learning environment is student-centered, its epistemology is developed through actions, and learning outcomes are derived by develo** autonomy. They claim that SSI pedagogy “in its purest form” emphasizes evidence-based reasoning, moral concerns, ethical issues, character formation, scientific inquiry, and controversial issues (Zeidler, 2014). However, little is known about how this is enacted in practice, and most of our knowledge stems from case studies. In the next section, we will put the pieces together and see what previous research reviews have to say about how SSI pedagogy has been enacted and described in the literature. In this review of the literature, we will focus on previous review studies, but none of them had the aim of conducting a comprehensive systematic review of previous classroom studies on SSI. Thereafter, in the “Results” section, we will present our systematic review to outline an overall picture of what SSI pedagogy looks like in literature.

3.2 The Character of SSI Teaching in Previous Literature Reviews

In previous review studies on SSI teaching, no one has addressed the issue based on three classical teaching questions: why teach (the objectives or ends of teaching); what to teach (the topic to address in teaching); and how to teach (the methods used). In, for example, Chowdhury et al. (2020), which is one of the few articles that attempts to characterize SSI pedagogy, they identify three attributes of SSI. These were described as follows: socially embedded science contexts oriented to local, national, and global issues; perception of complexity in diverse values, ethics, and morals; and promoting student participation including wicked problems in a cross-curriculum context. These attributes relate to objectives, topics, and methods, and this is the case in most reviews of the field. In the following sections, we will discern what previous reviews have to say about these three dimensions of SSI pedagogy, although the included references do not necessarily present their findings in this particular manner.

3.2.1 The Objectives of SSI Teaching

As displayed earlier in this paper, SSI as a pedagogy and teaching approach stems from a progressive view on science education research (Zeidler, 1984; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023), with the overall aim of develo** students’ scientific literacy (Zeidler, 2014). From this starting point, we could then conclude that SSI teaching has an aim other than those of traditional science education teaching approaches, as it focuses on how to apply scientific knowledge to controversial topics in society rather than the other three main learning objectives of science education practice, as identified by Hodson (2014), namely, learning in science, i.e., the concepts models of science; learning to do science, i.e., the scientific inquiry or method; and learning about science, i.e., the epistemology and nature of science (NOS).

The aim of applying science in society is rather broad, and in this section, we will dig deeper and see what other literature reviews identified as more fine-grained objectives of SSI pedagogy and teaching. Before exploring that issue further, we need to recognize the conclusion from Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e711">2021 review, which concluded that many studies found teachers to hold a rather instrumental view on SSI—often merely using it to contextualize content teaching and enhance content knowledge learning. This is an important objective of SSI teaching, as also reported in a literature review on SSI by Nordqvist and Aronsson (2019), but we would argue that this objective of SSI is only relevant in combination with other objectives related to the broader aims of scientific literacy, like “higher-order thinking” (c.f. Sadler, 2009, and later in this section).

In addition, motivational aspects and interest in science are also often mentioned as objectives in SSI teaching (Fang et al., 2019; Nordqvist & Aronsson, 2019; Sadler, 2009) and to provide more relevant contexts for learning (Sadler, 2011). Hence, the objectives of SSI teaching are, in some studies, referred to as an approach to motivate students and create interest for science.

Yet another important objective of SSI teaching in the literature is its ability to build an understanding of NOS, which is considered crucial to understand how science and society interact (Sadler, 2004), and, as concluded by Karışan and Zeidler (2017) in their literature review on the issue, “develo** more informed views of NOS will lead to enhanced classroom discourse about SSI” (Karışan & Zeidler, 2017, p. 149).

Perhaps the most accentuated objective of SSI teaching in the research literature is what Sadler (2009) generalizes as “higher-order thinking.” Higher-order thinking represents a broad set of connected constructs related to complex reasoning and practices, such as argumentation, critical thinking, and communication skills. Often these higher-order skills have the ultimate goal of enhancing students’ decision-making when it comes to controversial issues (Garrecht et al., 2018). From that point of view, decision-making skills or decision-making behaviors have been identified in previous reviews of SSI as the main aim of SSI teaching, because these skills or behaviors are of central importance in applying science in real societal contexts (Fang et al., 2019). In these decision-making processes, formal reasoning (as in argumentation), as well as informal reasoning (based on values), becomes important. Considering the latter aspect, moral reasoning has often been pointed out as an objective for SSI teaching in the literature (e.g., Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023). In decision-making, morality and values become equally important aims of education in addition to, and in connection with, content-based scientific knowledge.

As can be seen from this short summary of previous literature reviews on the purpose of teaching SSI within science education practice, a broad palette of educational ends is proposed. The only previous study addressing educational ends more systematically is performed by Sadler (2009), who in his review of 24 studies classified the outcomes of the studies in the following categories: interest and motivation, content knowledge, NOS, and higher-order thinking. It will therefore be important to more systematically investigate how these different ends are expressed in studies enacting SSI in real school settings, and what educational objectives prevail in practice. Many new studies have also been published since 2009.

3.2.2 The Topics of SSI Teaching

In order to implement and internalize a shift from traditional teaching practice to an SSI framework, it is important for teachers to be comfortable with the content being taught, and Karisan and Seidler conclude the following: “Context and curriculum do matter for SSI” (2017, p. 141). The learning context—i.e., the case and scientific topic chosen for SSI—has been shown in a previous review by Sadler (2009) to be of great importance in terms of develo** students’ interest and providing situations for knowledge application. In fact, in some studies, students were found to be so engaged with a particular SSI topic that they could not see how their knowledge could be transferred to other situations and contexts. This could be a potential problem, as in science education practice in general the main idea is to transfer knowledge and higher-order competencies to new contexts. Therefore, it is very important which SSI topics are used in the classroom setting, and that SSI from various content areas are used in education. What topics can be identified in the literature to date?

Sadler and Zeidler pointed out, by 2005, “current socioscientific issues frequently stem from biotechnological advances such as cloning, stem cells, genetically modified foods, and environmental challenges such as global climate change, land-use decisions, and the introduction of exotic substances (both biotic and abiotic)” (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005, p. 112). This quote goes back to a review by Sadler (2004), of 13 studies in which these kinds of topics were the only ones found, including one study focusing on the environmental issue of nuclear power plants. Hence, even from the start, SSI topics have mostly been enacted within the life and environmental sciences. However, there are no studies that have examined the content focus of SSI in studies of teaching and learning in science education research in a comprehensive way. Some review studies have investigated parts of the SSI research field, as will be accounted for in the next paragraph.

In a review on the risk concept in SSI research, Schenk et al. (2021) found that the most common topics in 296 studies were ranked from most to least common: nature conservation, biotechnology, climate, nuclear/radiation, chemicals and human health, alternative energy, consumer choices, sexual health, and electro-magnetic issues. Hernández-Ramos et al. (2021) did a review of 33 SSI studies that used technology to support problem-based scenarios involving SSI. In that subsample, environmental topics relating to climate change, soil quality, deforestation, and water quality were the most common topics. Other categories found were health (in relation to biotechnology and medical issues), engineering (in relation to manufacturing processes—often in connection to the environment), and other issues related to chemistry, physics, and computer sciences. In a review of SSI studies from 2008 to 2020 focusing on chemistry education, Çalık and Wiyarsi (2021) found that most papers in their review addressed chemicals and environmental pollution and the use of fossil fuels. Other topics that were found, albeit to a lesser degree, included chemical use in daily life, alternative energy sources, and nutrition. Some studies were also shown to address addictive substances, food additives, the abuse of chemical substances, and chemicals in medicines. Hence, as can be seen from these four reviews, most SSI topics seem to revolve around environmental and health issues.

3.2.3 SSI Teaching Methods

The SSI teaching methods are very important because they align contexts in society rather than in the scientific laboratory (Sadler, 2009). Moreover, as pointed out in a systematic review of the effects of using SSI in problem-based learning, Hernández-Ramos et al. (2021) posited that the often positive effects of SSI teaching on students’ competencies and motivation could in fact stem from the teaching methods used and not from the course content. Hence, SSI teaching methods are important. Presley et al. (2013), while designing a SSI teaching model, identified three fundamental aspects, of which two relate to the methods and approaches of SSI. First, students should be active participants in the teaching; second, the teacher role should be one of a facilitator; and third, the classroom environment should be organized in a way so as to become collaborative and respectful. The how question is therefore important, but what characterize SSI teaching?

In the research review from Chen and ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e830">2021), they identified four productive learning activities that teachers often use in SSI teaching. They found that classroom discussions were the most frequently addressed teaching activity in the reviewed studies. The second most common teaching method was group work or problem-based approaches. Sometimes, teachers complemented groupwork with other actives, such as role play, in which students were supposed to address different perspectives and interests pertaining to the controversial issue. The third teaching method reported was argumentation-driven teaching. Often, argumentation was taught explicitly as a way to promote critical thinking among students. A fourth reported teaching approach in the review by Chen and ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e833">2021) was questioning, in which the teacher framed questions as the “devil’s advocate” to provoke or challenge students’ positions regarding different controversial issues. Similar pedagogical approaches and methods are reported in other reviews as well, but not in the same systematic way. Zeidler (in Bencze et al., 2020) describes SSI pedagogy as one including perspective-taking, discussions, and arguing and defending different positions based on science and moral standpoints. Some of these aspects are also visible in the attributes of SSI itself, as reported by Chowdhury et al. (2020).

As can be seen from these articles, many of the teaching methods relate to the progressive idea of having active and participating students, which demands that students communicate and reason, both formally, such as through argumentation, and informally, such as through moral reasoning. This has led to the development of the idea of using socioscientific reasoning to describe the most prominent activity in the SSI classroom (Sadler et al., 2007). Socioscientific reasoning includes recognizing the inherent complexity of SSI, examining issues from multiple perspectives, appreciating that SSI are subject to ongoing inquiry, and exhibiting skepticism when presented potentially biased information. Simonneaux and Simonneaux (2009) also added identifying risks and uncertainties and expressing values as important aspects of socioscientific reasoning.

3.3 Additional Facets of SSI Teaching and Summary

When turning to the most recent review on SSI research in the latest Handbook on Science Education Research (2023), we find that Zeidler and Sadler (2023) identify four main themes from SSI research in the last 10 years. These themes relate (to different degrees) to research about SSI pedagogy. In the first theme—the engagement of curriculum practice and teachers’ pedagogical beliefs—the dialogic nature of classroom discourse and the teacher’s role is highlighted; i.e., it stresses that the power imbalance between teacher and student is different in SSI, and the foci in teaching approaches are on student activity and agency. In relation to sense-making practices, Zeidler and Sadler (2023) point out the rising importance of using media in teaching. Also, the importance of using informal or place-based learning outside the classroom is given a theme of its own, showing its greater importance in SSI research over the last decade. The use of community-based arenas seems to be an important aspect of SSI pedagogy.

To summarize, SSI teaching is characterized in previous literature reviews as addressing multiple objectives using a variety of progressive student-centered teaching approaches but remains focused on rather a limited number of scientific topics, mainly those related to environmental and life sciences. In the following systematic review, we will take a holistic approach and investigate how SSI teaching in relation to its described objectives, topics, and methods been characterized in studies of teaching and learning in science education research over the last 20 years to get a comprehensive picture of SSI pedagogy.

4 Method

The systematic review’s overall scope emerged from the identified need for guidance on SSI teaching as experienced by practicing teachers. In a pilot study, it was concluded that SSI teaching encompasses not only a wide range of complex subject content, but also a diversity of pedagogical approaches as well as many overlap** learning goals. Even though teachers seem to agree on the importance of engaging their students in SSI, the pilot revealed that it may be challenging to navigate the goals and purposes of SSI education, and guidance on how to put theory into practice is called for. Furthermore, we concluded that there seems to be some confusion about the typology of SSI as an educational movement and the many interconnected currents of contemporary science education research that touch upon the relationship between science and values in decision-making pertaining to socially significant issues (Skolforskningsintitutet 2022).

The idea behind acknowledging practitioners as stakeholders is to increase the usefulness of the review. This approach aims to compile information from studies of teaching and learning in science education research that can help practitioners navigate the body of literature and solve problems experienced in their everyday work (Gough et al., 2019).

Informed by the conclusions of our pilot study, the focus of this systematic review was decided upon by a committee composed of practitioners, school leaders, and educational researchers at the board of The Swedish Institute for Educational Research. Review questions, as well as detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, were clarified by the review team, as described below.

4.1 Review Design

The methodology used in this systematic review was informed by the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009). As the purpose is to categorize the pedagogical aspects of SSI as depicted in studies of teaching and learning in science education research, the review is inclusive in terms of research interests, study design, and theoretical perspectives. This approach allows for the inclusion of a large number of studies, and thereby many examples of objectives, topics, and methods of SSI teaching used in schools. The systematic review includes frequencies of the objectives, topics, and methods of SSI teaching as outlined in the studies of teaching and learning in science education research. However, the systematic review does not provide any guidance on the effectiveness of presented options in relation to students’ development and learning.

4.2 Criteria for Selecting Studies

The current study investigates what studies have been conducted on SSI teaching and learning in primary or secondary school. Research and practice relevant to SSI content have developed within several related currents of science education research and practice, including, for example, sustainable development education and teaching on the interaction between society and technological development (see, e.g., Bencze et al., 2020; Pedretti & Nazir, 2011). Hence, it is a challenge to both identify relevant keywords and select studies that respond to the systematic review’s purpose and questions. The search strategy therefore includes a breadth of keywords that are conceivably relevant to the focus of the review.

To be eligible, studies had to focus on SSI or SSI-related content in authentic learning situations in the school context. Our definition of SSI and SSI-related content included four essential criteria or features. First, the issue addressed in potentially relevant studies must have clear relevance to the future development of society. Second, the issue must be interdisciplinary and ill-structured, and encompass a complexity of different aspects, interests, and possible positions. Third, scientific knowledge has a crucial importance for how to reason about the issue and make informed decisions. Fourth, ethical perspectives and values are inherent aspects of such a decision-making process, regardless of whether these aspects are explicitly raised during the students’ learning experience.

Only research reports written in English or in Scandinavian languages were considered for inclusion in the systematic review. Moreover, studies had to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals ranked level 1 or level 2 according to the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series, and PublishersFootnote 2. We included studies conducted in any country.

4.3 Literature Search

Systematic search strategies were designed and conducted by the review team. The focus of the searches was broad and comprehensive. The following databases were used: ERIC, Education Source, Google scholar, Oria.no, PsycINFO, Scopus, and SwePub. Our choice of databases was based on the aim of focusing on educational research, but also to include broader social and psychological sciences. Literature searches were conducted in three steps. First, we searched all databases using the search terms “socioscientific,” “socio scientific,” “socio-scientific,” or “SSI.” Second, we searched the ERIC, Education Source, and PsycInfo databases using search terms related to the term “socioscientific” (i.e., “STSE” or “socially acute questions”) refined by terms describing a school context (i.e., ”science education,” “science teaching,” or “STEM”). Third, we searched the same three databases using search terms related to social issues (i.e., “sustainability,” “climate change,” “GMO,” “citizenship,” or “biotechnology”) refined by search terms describing a school context, and search terms related to informed decision-making (i.e., “reasoning,” “argumentation,” “moral,” or “informed”). For a study to be captured, search terms needed to occur in either the title, the abstract, or in the keywords. The literature searches were conducted in February and April 2021.

4.4 Study Selection and Screening Process

Rayyan QCRI software (Ouzzani et al., 2016) was used by the review team to enable independent and masked screening of abstracts and full-text publications. Publications retrieved from database searches were imported into Rayyan for screening. Rayyan is a mobile and web-based application that facilitates collaboration between reviewers involved in screening and study selection in a systematic review.

4.4.1 Level One: Screening Based on Abstract Information

After removing duplicates, the retrieved list of publications was first subjected to a crude exclusion of irrelevant publications based on title and abstract information. This first level of screening was conducted by two reviewers in an unmasked fashion. In case of uncertainty, the study remained included until the next screening step. In a second step, the remaining abstracts were subjected to masked screening by another two reviewers. Full-text versions of all studies selected by at least one of these reviewers were obtained.

4.4.2 Level Two: Screening Based on Full Text Information

All studies that passed the abstract-screening phase were assessed as full texts for inclusion independently by two reviewers. When a reviewer excluded a study based on full-text information, the reason for the exclusion was documented. At the end of the screening process, any disagreement was resolved in a discussion among the review team.

4.4.3 Level Three: Bibliometric Quality Assessment

The final step of the study selection process involved the exclusion of publications in journals not listed as level 1 or level 2 according to the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series, and Publishers. Level 2 is the highest rating and is assigned to internationally leading and prestigious publication channels. To be rated level 2, a nomination and evaluation process—including scientific panels and feedback from independent scholars—is applied. Level 1 publication channels are considered to meet basic academic quality criteria including external peer review, a scientific editorial board, and minimum national authorship. For pragmatic reasons, ratings for the year 2021 were used.

4.5 Data-Extraction and Systematic Review Processes

After studies had been selected, relevant information was extracted from each using a coding sheet. We combined a deductive strategy using a template of predetermined main categories and a data-driven inductive approach to develop subcategories (cf. Pedretti & Nazir, 2011). The three major aspects (i.e., objectives, topics, and methods) of SSI teaching served as main categories that guided our data extraction.

Prior to data extraction, we performed two calibration exercises using up to 10 randomly selected studies from our sample. All four members of the review team individually read and analyzed the same studies in order to identify and create tentative subcategories of SSI teaching that could be discerned in the selected studies. The exercises allowed ideas to emerge and allowed us to build a common understanding within the team of which subcategories were relevant and valid.

Once the subcategories were chosen and short summaries for each had been developed, these summaries were applied deductively to analyze all studies in our sample. This was done by randomly distributing one-fourth of the remaining studies to each member of the review team for analysis and data extraction. During this process, we remained alert to ideas and information emerging from studies that might require modification of our initial subcategories. Analysis meetings were alternated with re-readings of studies, when necessary. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss each members’ suggested categorization, and if necessary, to revise subcategories. Thus, the final outcome, which included valid categories that were clearly supported by the underlying research publications, was jointly constructed by all members of the review team.

5 Results

The results of the literature searches and study selection process are summarized in a flowchart (Fig. 1). After removal of duplicates, 5183 studies were screened for inclusion in the systematic review. The study selection process resulted in a final sample of 157 studies of teaching and learning in science education research originating from 30 different countries. The majority of the included studies were conducted in the USA (n =33) and in Sweden (n =29).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the study selection process, adapted from Moher et al. (2009)

Full size image

In many studies, there is overlap between the categories of teaching objectives, topics, and methods. Hence, the same kind of SSI teaching described in the same study can be listed under more than one category (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Overview of teaching objectives, teaching topics, and teaching methods of SSI in the reviewed empirical publications (n =157), including the number of studies within each category
Full size table
Table 2 Basic identification of research studies (n =157) on science teaching, including SSI, with addressed categories of teaching objectives, teaching topics, and teaching methods
Full size table

5.1 What Objectives Are Addressed in SSI Teaching?

The systematic review shows that SSI teaching addresses a multitude of objectives (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Our analysis creates six broad categories of SSI teaching objectives, which are specified in Table 3.

Table 3 Categories of SSI teaching objectives, including descriptions of qualifiers for each objective
Full size table

Informed decision-making is a prominent objective of the SSI teaching described in most studies included in the systematic review. This is expected, considering the inclusion criteria of the review. While a more immediate objective may be that students should engage in decision-making regarding the SSI specifically addressed in the teaching sequence, a more long-term objective is to offer students tools to use when they encounter other SSI in their future lives. Informed decision-making includes, e.g., perspective-taking and discussing and negotiating possible alternatives and consequences with others. The studies also emphasize the importance of students clearly identifying and using scientific knowledge as an essential part of the basis needed for their reasoning.

Students’ learning of science content is described as an explicit objective in a large number of studies, which is also expected in light of the review’s inclusion criteria. However, there are cases where science content knowledge, despite being essential for the SSI itself, does not appear as an emphasized objective within the framework of the teaching described in the study. Although all studies included in the review address issues that have a scientific base, objectives other than science content knowledge may come to the fore. Moreover, the science content described can often be related to somewhat different, but interconnected, levels of knowledge. It appears that the scientific knowledge primarily emphasized is knowledge essential for students’ reasoning in SSI. Therefore, less attention may be paid to specific or traditional science content knowledge.

Argumentation, as a skill, is usually described as central in SSI, and the teaching described in many of the included studies takes this into account. Regardless of whether the arguments concentrate on facts or values, they form the basis for our reasoning and ability to explain how we think about an issue and why. The quality of an argument can be related to structure and content. Structure refers to the various elements of an argument, such as claims, data, and warrants, whereas content refers to subject-specific components. SSI teaching may focus on either structure or content, or both. In some studies, the importance of students being aware of and able to formulate counterarguments is highlighted.

Communication refers to two different aspects in SSI teaching and learning. One aspect is about students’ ability to communicate with each other and with the teacher in a comfortable and purposeful way within the framework of discussion-based teaching. This aspect of communication focuses on the interaction in the classroom and students’ responsibility to contribute to a safe and positive learning environment. A second aspect of communication concerns how to create opportunities for students to meet people or use information channels in society outside of school to share their knowledge and experiences, or to exert political influence. In these cases, the teaching may include discussions on different ways to communicate with actors in society.

NOS may be described as characteristics of science and scientific knowledge-building; i.e., what science is and how scientific knowledge is developed. This category includes SSI teaching that emphasizes the importance of develo** students’ understanding of NOS in relation to the SSI they may face. Knowledge about NOS can be important for understanding e.g., how uncertainties need to be assessed when analyzing future consequences. One characteristic of SSI is that evidence or knowledge is incomplete and uncertain, especially when knowledge-building is still part of the forefront of academic research. In some studies, teaching can address the challenges of managing knowledge uncertainties and different strategies of dealing with risk assessment.

Most studies included in the systematic review relate in one way or another to the importance of develo** students’ action-taking skills, participation in democratic processes, and scientific literacy. However, our reading and interpretation of studies reveals that these objectives are more rarely presented in an explicit way to the students participating in SSI teaching. In this category, only studies describing teaching that highlights democratic participation as an objective which is communicated to or otherwise made visible to the students are included. In these studies, SSI teaching may emphasize, e.g., how society is organized and what opportunities citizens have to influence various processes and decisions. The teaching may also include promoting students’ courage and willingness to reach out to different stakeholders in society to gain access to their knowledge, interests, and perspectives, or to influence real-life policy.

5.2 What Topics Are Encompassed in SSI Teaching?

The systematic review shows that SSI teaching topics can be related to two overarching areas of knowledge: the environment and sustainable development, and health and technology (Tables 1, 4, and 5). This division underscores the relevance of contemporary global challenges that students need to engage with critically. Most of the studies focus is on one of these two knowledge areas, but there are also studies that refer to teaching several different SSI topics (Table 2). These studies may be relevant to both areas. There are also cases where the starting point is a specific technology or a specific societal challenge. In these studies, the learning activities described may address environmental and health aspects. An example of the latter is activities that involve discussions about pollution, issues that can be analyzed from both an environmental and a health perspective.

Table 4 Categories of SSI teaching topics in the area of environment and sustainable development, including descriptions of qualifiers for each topic
Full size table
Table 5 Categories of SSI teaching topics in the area of health and technology, including descriptions of qualifiers for each topic
Full size table

In some studies, SSI teaching departs from the concept of sustainable development. Although sustainable development issues can be discussed from an environmental and/or a health perspective, the systematic review shows that the SSI teaching described in these studies tends to focus on environmental aspects.

5.2.1 SSI Related to the Environment and to Sustainable Development

SSI teaching related to the environment and sustainable development appears in 107 of the included studies (Tables 1 and 2). Our analysis of SSI learning content resulted in four broad categories (Table 4).

SSI teaching on climate change deals with the generation of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of different types of human activity. Some studies directly address greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, while others focus on energy supply, the pros and cons of different energy sources, and society’s transition to renewable energy systems.

Biodiversity refers to the variety of species that interact to form ecosystems. SSI teaching related to biodiversity focuses on human activities that threaten the balance of ecosystems and lead to the loss of biodiversity.

SSI teaching focused on environmental pollution deals with the risks associated with the introduction of compounds into the air, soil, or water, which can affect human health and the environment. Environmental pollution is usually the result of emissions from human activities, such as the manufacture and use of various goods.

The management of resources, including the use of land and water, often entail difficult trade-offs that require the consideration of a wide range of issues and interests. The use of land and water is usually regulated by law and monitored by actors and interest groups at different levels of society. SSI teaching related to resource management can provide opportunities that benefit from local relevance and authentic situations.

5.2.2 SSI Related to Health and Technology

SSI teaching related to health and technology appears in 75 of the included studies (Tables 1 and 2). Four broad categories emerge from our analysis of the SSI learning content (Table 5).

The application of biotechnology and medicine may involve ethical considerations that must be resolved with the support of our collective values. It is important to distinguish between what can be done and what society should accept. In some studies, SSI teaching in this category concerns the ethics of various forms of human genetic engineering.

From a health perspective, food issues pertain to the types of food we grow and consume in relation to their potential impacts on human health and well-being. A relatively large proportion of studies in this category deal with the use of genetically modified foods (GMF) and the associated benefits and risks.

SSI teaching on chemical and material engineering deals with the production and use of various products that can damage our health or the environment. This category also includes teaching that focuses on air quality and societal phenomena that contribute to air pollution, such as road traffic and certain industries.

Radiation covers the opportunities and risks associated with the use of technologies that generate various forms of radiation in society. Studies in this category include teaching about the risks associated with the use of nuclear power and magnetic fields from electric power lines and mobile phone technology.

5.3 What Methods Are Used in SSI Teaching?

The systematic review shows that the teaching of SSI involves a variety of methods (Tables 1, 2, and 6). We use “method” as a collective term including, for example, instructional strategies or approaches. In 21 of the included studies, no description of the teaching method was provided (see Table 2). Our analysis resulted in seven broad categories of teaching methods (Table 6).

Table 6 Categories of SSI teaching methods, including descriptions of qualifiers for each method
Full size table

Engaging students in some form of discussion seems to be a central feature of most studies. A group discussion should be interpreted as students interacting verbally to share knowledge, experiences, and values. A prominent idea of the group discussion is that students are engaged in exploratory activities, where they can learn from each other, test arguments, and share feelings and opinions. However, for the discussions to be exploratory, it is assumed that students will be willing to share their thoughts and arguments, to listen to each other’s reactions, and to reconsider their initial positions. Group discussions can be held among the whole class, in small groups, or in pairs of students. In whole class discussions, the teacher can act as a facilitator, asking questions and encouraging students to reflect on their claims and arguments.

The debate differs from group discussions in that the dialogue and exchange of ideas is governed by rules. A teaching debate can be regulated, for example, by allocating speaking time to each participant or by guiding students on specific aspects in the discussion. Furthermore, the debate can have elements of both dialogue and monologue. While a dialogue is characterized by critical and constructive reasoning, a monologue can be characterized by students maintaining, communicating, and defending a particular position.

Another form of discussion revealed by the systematic review is role play. Role play is characterized by students either choosing or being assigned a particular role from which they are expected to interact with others. Roles may be defined in such a way that students are expected to represent, for example, a particular position, profession, or interest in order to recognize and understand underlying patterns of conflict from different perspectives. One characteristic of arrangements where students are assigned a specific role is that they do not necessarily have to personally stand behind the positions they represent. Role play is often, but not always, combined with some form of class debate.

In this context, inquiry means that students themselves take responsibility for interpreting, reviewing, and evaluating the information they need to be able to think about an issue. Inquiry-based work may include exercises where students make observations, conduct interviews or experiments and collect data, or manipulate and process data they have already collected, e.g., database labs. Hence, inquiry can refer to both theoretical and practical activities, but both demand that students critically assess the information that they gather or create to solve a task.

In the systematic review, a student project is defined as students working over an extended period of time to answer a complex question or solve a real-world problem within the framework of thematic learning content. A student project usually aims to produce a concrete product or action, such as models, posters, or opinion pieces, or to carry out activities that address local issues, such as cleaning up litter in the local neighborhood.

Digital resources refer to applications, software, or programs that are specifically designed to engage students in specific learning activities. Examples of digital resources described in the included studies are augmented reality materials, visualization tools, or learning games. General use of information and communications technology (ICT), such as using the internet to find information, is not included in this category. We have also not included the use of generic digital learning materials such as images, videos, or text.

The outside world relations category includes studies that describe teaching that emphasizes the importance of students’ engagement with real places or people outside of school as part of their learning process. This may involve place-based learning strategies or other out-of-school activities, including interacting with people who have a particular connection to a certain environment or issue, or meeting people with expertise in a field relevant to the teaching content. This category also includes approaches that encourage students to relate to a particular place in their local area that is well known to them.

6 Discussion

In the “Results” section, we conceptualized SSI from a pedagogical perspective to identify how SSI is enacted in studies of teaching and learning in science education research to benchmark best-practice SSI according to this research. In this section, the results from the systematic review are discussed in relation to the three questions of “why,” “what,” and “how” to teach SSI and previous research reviews outlined in the “Background” section. Based on this discussion, we provide suggestions for develo** teaching practice and possible new opportunities for science education research.

6.1 Educational Objectives—the Reasons Behind SSI Teaching

Informed decision-making was found to be a pivotal objective of SSI teaching according to our review. Empowering students to make sound choices when confronted with complex socioscientific issues aligns with the broader objective of nurturing responsible and informed citizens (e.g., Chowdhury et al., 2020; Roberts, 2011; Zeidler, 2014). By emphasizing the relevance of science in decision-making, teachers intend to equip students with skills that extend beyond the classroom. This finding is in line with the advocated importance of decision-making in controversial issues (Garrecht et al., 2018) or its necessity for the implementation of scientific knowledge in real-life contexts relevant to learners (Fang et al., 2019; Sadler, 2009, 2011). That is, informed decision-making as an objective for SSI teaching reflects its foundational role, alongside “higher order thinking” (Sadler, 2009). Other similar competencies often used to underpin decision-making processes found to be objectives of SSI teaching include argumentation and communication. Effective communication and reasoning are essential tools for students to express their opinions, engage in constructive debate, and defend their perspectives. These skills are supposed to equip students with the means to critically evaluate information and foster intellectual resilience. Based on our findings, we would conclude that much of SSI pedagogy aims to cultivate higher order thinking skills, including critical thinking, argumentation, and moral reasoning, so as to enable students to make informed decisions. This is probably unsurprising, considering how SSI is portrayed in the literature. However, as Nielsen et al. (2020) suggested, SSI is, to large degree, not implemented in science teaching practices. Despite the focus on its acknowledged importance during the last few decades (Sadler, 2004), the implementation of SSI is still lagging behind (Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e12542">2021; Nielsen, 2020). These competencies—decision-making, argumentation, and communication—are more progressively oriented learning objectives that differ from learning goals science teachers usually teach, which mostly focus on science content knowledge (Hodson, 2014), which could be a reason for why science teachers finding it difficult to enact SSI in the classroom, as also shown in studies of teaching and learning (Christenson  et al., 2017). It might therefore be fruitful to start the SSI teaching the other way round—with the relevant issues first, and higher-order thinking skills as a necessary means of addressing complex and ill-structured problems.

One explanation for the reported difficulty of integrating SSI into science education practice may be the presence of one of the other categories we have identified. As mentioned in the last paragraph, learning science content knowledge within the epistemology of traditional science teaching was found to be the second most common learning objective in the reviewed publications. This is somewhat surprising, considering that it is most often not mentioned as the primary objective of SSI pedagogy in the literature, but it was found to be an important learning objective in the review of SSI studies in biotechnology by Nordqvist and Aronsson (2019). As argued by Chen and ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e12561">2021), science teachers have a rather instrumental view of SSI in science teaching, following their usual teaching tradition. Consequently, it is possible that this resonates with a tendency for teachers to follow Roberts’ (2011) Vision I of scientific literacy rather than Vision II, the latter being the overarching aim of SSI. The often-stated focus on science content knowledge as a learning objective in SSI cannot be disregarded as a potential influence on the resistance of enacting the more progressively oriented aspects of SSI, because such an approach demands a renegotiation of the main purpose of science teaching to teach about applying science rather than master the concepts of science.

One interesting finding of the review was that few studies mentioned NOS as a learning objective. Actually, fewer studies referred to this learning objective compared to what would have been expected based on our reading and interpretation of research studies. Both Zeidler (2014) and Karışan and Zeidler (2017) concluded in their reviews that NOS is beneficial for SSI. The integration of NOS in SSI teaching underscores the necessity of understanding how science operates and evolves. By unpacking the uncertainties and complexities of scientific inquiry, students are better equipped to assess the credibility of information, recognize the dynamic nature of knowledge, and, accordingly, understand how science and society interact (Sadler, 2004). However, both NOS and SSI can be considered complex constructs per se, and it is possible that combining them in teaching practice may be considered too overwhelming for students, at least without guided teaching, as advocated for in a previous review (Karışan & Zeidler, 2017).

The objective of democratic participation was recognized as a learning objective in a few studies. This goal is strongly linked to the organization of society or the ways in which students interact with other citizens, businesses, organizations, and policy- and decision-makers. Such interactions have been proposed in previous research through highlighting relevant learning contexts (Sadler, 2011) and applying scientific knowledge in authentic societal contexts (Fang et al., 2019). The focus is on interaction with society, which can also increase the relevance of classroom practice by allowing students to use their acquired knowledge. This is likely to require science teachers to plan their teaching practices differently, which might explain the occurrence of this learning goal in the review.

To conclude, our findings show that decision-making and aligning higher-order skills such as argumentation and communication are the most important learning objective in the reviewed studies and could be recommended as benchmarks. However, the learning objective of science content knowledge was also emphasized, as stressed by Zeidler and Sadler (2023), and it is possible that its persistence hinders the implementation of SSI focusing on more progressive objectives such as NOS and democratic participation.

6.2 Content Areas and Topics—What Is Taught in SSI

The results highlight two predominant thematic areas of SSI teaching: environment and sustainable development, and health and technology. This division underscores the relevance of contemporary global challenges that students need to engage with critically. The breadth of topics highlight the multifaceted nature of SSI, where scientific concepts intertwine with societal concerns, fostering a holistic understanding of science’s impact on people’s lives. SSI topics are suggested to be socially embedded and oriented toward local, national, and global issues, encouraging students to explore the complexity of values, ethics, and morals in these contexts in line with previous reviews (e.g., Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023).

Climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental pollution, and resource management emerge as focal topics within the environmental domain in our review. These topics encompass urgent issues that demand students’ comprehension and action. Our results add to the findings of previous reviews, which in fact list a number of similar dominant topics based on their respective perspectives, e.g., technology-enabled SSI-based problems (Hernández-Ramos et al., 2021), and risk concepts in SSI (Schenk et al., 2021). Therefore, using a broader spectrum in our systematic review resulted in a comprehensive map of the field.

The health and technology thematic area encapsulates topics on biotechnology and medicine, food, chemicals and materials engineering, and radiation. These topics bring forth additional ethical dilemmas and risk assessments, primarily pertaining to human well-being. Sadler and Zeidler (2005) showed that SSI stems from a biotechnological sphere and we can conclude that this notion is still prevalent. In a recent review focusing on chemistry education, Çalık and Wiyarsi (2021) show that the trend of exploring the effects of chemical substances in, for example, food and medicine is still prevalent. The low frequency of studies addressing radiation in our review is in line with findings from Schenk et al. (2021) and might be explained by the fact that radiation is less emphasized in the media, i.e., surrounding society, today compared to 20 years ago.

We can conclude, based on our findings, that SSI topics are highly concentrated in a few subject areas. One question that arises is whether SSI can be included in science education practice in a more general manner including a broader range of topics—or whether it is best confined to a few specific topics. Another way to look at these findings is that the topics identified are representative of the school context, but there may be additional topics that are related to science or that can be argued with scientific evidence found in real-world contexts. We believe that carefully conducted studies are needed to add findings from out-of-school contexts and possibly find relationships that show how interchangeability can develop. As mentioned by Sadler (2009), the SSI topic is important. We would therefore question whether SSI—which Hodson (2014) sees as one of four overarching aims in science education practice—is truly appropriate as a general curriculum category, or whether SSI should be addressed in a different way. According to the literature, SSI (in terms of content areas and topics) should be strongly linked to the objectives of informed decision-making and argumentation, which our results confirm is the case. Students are presumably taught the kind of knowledge and skills that are needed to apply science in society. The question emerging from these results is how many of the topics or subject areas of school science curricula can fulfill this link to society and be a possible case for SSI. Our results indicate that few such topics exist.

One interpretation that could be made of the fact that few topics are used to enact SSI is the difficulties in finding relevant real-world questions and contexts in other topics. These real-world problems tend to be found in environmental and health issues, delimiting the number of topics used in SSI teaching. This might also explain why some objectives—such as democratic decision-making (see previous section), and teaching methods, such as outside world relations (see next section)—seldom occur in the studies we reviewed, even though they are emphasized in the literature as a way to promote of scientific literacy (Zeidler, 2014) and the development of skills to use it in real-world contexts (Ryder, 2001; Sadler, 2009; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023). Here, there seems to be a gap between teaching practices as they are portrayed in the reviewed articles, and the literature. It seems that informal or place-based learning within arenas outside the classroom, as pointed out by Zeidler and Sadler (2023), are indeed worth exploring further. This means that topics suitable for SSI teaching must align with the actual real-world problem at hand.

6.3 Methods of Teaching Practice—How to Teach SSI

According to the literature, SSI teaching encompasses a diverse range of pedagogical strategies, emphasizing student engagement, dialogue, and active participation (Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e12669">2021; Chowdhury et al., 2020; Presley et al., 2013). In the review we conducted, group discussions stand out as the most dominant method used, being described in more than a hundred studies, surpassing the other categories by a factor of three. Group discussions reflect the collaborative nature of SSI discussions and the importance of collectively exploring issues. Similar results are reported in reviews addressing teaching methods and approaches (Presley et al., 2013) and productive learning activities (Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e12681">2021).

We would argue that debate and role play also are closely related to group discussion in that these teaching methods require students to communicate and reason, but they differ in the way they are organized. The role of debates, where students adhere to specific rules and viewpoints, offers a structured way to delve into complex topics while sharpening argumentation skills. Role play emerges as a technique to foster empathy and encourage multifaceted perspectives. By embodying different roles, students confront the intricate layers of real-world problems, enhancing their ability to grasp diverse viewpoints. However, both debate and role play are much less common than group discussions, occurring in around one in four of the reviewed studies in our results. It is possible that teachers find it difficult to incorporate such methods into their teaching practice due to practical, organizational, or curricular constraints (Chowdhury et al., 2020; Sadler, 2009), or are again influenced by the difficulty of changing positions (Zeidler & Sadler, 2023).

This loose grou** of the three teaching methods—group discussions, debate, and role play—follows, we would argue, socioscientific reasoning (Sadler et al., 2007; Simonneaux & Simonneaux, 2009) by encouraging critical thinking and the exploration of multifaceted issues. Such methods promote a sense of active engagement in learning, as students become active participants in constructing knowledge rather than passive recipients of information. This can possibly lead to greater acquisition of knowledge and a deeper understanding of complex subjects (Sadler et al., 2007; Simonneaux & Simonneaux, 2009). By incorporating these techniques into science education practice, teachers have the potential to cultivate not only well-informed students but also responsible citizens capable of addressing multifaceted, real-world challenges. That is, socioscientific reasoning seems to be a crucial benchmark for SSI teaching, according to our results.

The idea to engage students in collaborative learning, enabling them to explore multiple perspectives on SSI topics (e.g., Zeidler, 2014), can explain why inquiry is the second most frequent teaching method found in our results. Inquiry-based teaching approaches empower students to critically analyze information, promoting deeper understanding and engagement. It is also a well-known teaching approach in science education practice in general outside the SSI framework (Hodson, 2014). In terms of previous reviews, inquiry as a teaching method does not stand out as an important feature of previous studies. However, the related area of NOS, which is often mentioned as an objective in SSI teaching (Karışan & Zeidler, 2017; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler, 2014), often includes aspects of inquiry and methods similar to those presented in our findings. Within the framework of NOS, inquiry seems to be advocated for in studies that enact SSI in relation to NOS (e.g., Sadler, 2004). Moreover, the collaborative learning approach often underlying inquiry is also at the core of student projects, which were also commonly found in the reviewed studies. Student projects as a category is not mentioned in other reviews, but the idea of collaborative learning is visible in problem-based learning (Hernández-Ramos et al., 2021), in descriptions of SSI pedagogy (Bencze et al., 2020), and in productive learning activities (Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e12739">2021). Hence, the aspect of producing an action or product found within this category of student project is not visible in previous reviews and could be an important aspect of SSI teaching to consider.

The inclusion of digital resources and outside world relations in SSI teaching attests to the evolving landscape of education. Leveraging technology and connecting classroom learning with real-world experiences enhances students’ connection to SSI, strengthening the authenticity of their learning. Few studies mentioned this aspect and it is not to be found in previous reviews either. It is likely that this aspect of SSI teaching is a recent development in SSI pedagogy that would be of interest for further research.

Notably, there was no description of the process by which SSI was taught—i.e., method—in 21 of the articles included in our systematic review (see Table 2). This shows that research on enacted SSI does not always identify methods, a remarkable finding that may merit further exploration because it seems that in several studies, SSI pedagogy is taken for granted, which this review clearly shows cannot be the case. Therefore, if theory and research are to be helpful in the aforementioned resha** of classroom practice, more research is needed to discern SSI teaching methods, as also pointed out in other reviews by Chen and ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e12752">2021) and by Nielsen et al. (2020).

6.4 Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this systematic review are related to the literature search and the inclusion and exclusion criteria as key aspects defining the breadth and depth of the work (Gough et al., 2019). To ensure that our literature searches provided a relevant selection of studies for our aim to provide a map within science education research, we conducted the search in seven databases: ERIC, Education Source, Google scholar, Oria.no, PsycINFO, Scopus, and SwePub. These databases represent educational research, and social and psychological sciences. The strategies in our review design are in line with suggestions by Gough et al. (2019). To make sure that relevant studies were included, the search was conducted in three steps. The first search was broad and comprehensive, and the following searches were informed by the first search and refined based on framing science in a school context and pertaining to social issues. Therefore, we believe that we have covered the relevant sources of information.

Guided by need of teachers to put theory into practice, our sample of included studies was limited to socioscientific issues that had been conducted in classroom teaching or in authentic learning situations within a school context. Our decision to only include studies that addressed both teachers and students meant that we excluded studies that focused only on teachers, even if they highlighted aspects of SSI teaching. This has affected our selection of studies and perhaps also the categories we found, but we believe that it was necessary to include the student perspective to ensure that SSI was being enacted.

Research in SSI has developed in several different, albeit related, strands of science education (e.g., Bencze et al., 2020; Pedretti & Nazir, 2011) and is therefore difficult to capture. We have therefore used keywords that encompass the general breadth relevant to our study. Additionally, our definition of SSI and related content, informed by theory and research on SSI teaching (e.g., Zeidler, 2014), were used as inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, there is no single definition advocated for in literature, and this might have influenced the way in which we were able to capture all relevant studies. As a review team, we have been meticulous in our screening and study selection process, which included close reading of abstracts (level one) and full texts (level two) to remain as true as possible to selection criteria.

In addition, our use of a systematic methodology is informed by the PRISMA statement (Moher et al., 2009), but limited our ability to assess or quantify the quality of research in selected studies. We therefore used a bibliometric quality assessment, the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series, and Publishers, to guide our study selection and screening process. This systematic review can be used to inform future systematic reviews of explicit questions that require a more formal assessment of the quality of the evidence. As a result, we cannot make definitive statements about, for example, the effectiveness of different teaching methods. Rather, our findings provide an aspirational map of the objectives, topics, and methods that are included in research on SSI teaching practice. We argue that this systematic review can be used as a starting point for science teachers who wish to develop their teaching practice based on a data-informed approach.

It is essential to exercise caution when interpreting the findings and engaging in discussions based on the outcomes of this systematic review. This caution is warranted, because the authors have limited capacity to shed light on undisclosed or unexamined contributing factors, such as teacher characteristics, student attributes, the fidelity of SSI implementation, and potential methodological issues; all of which may have played a significant role in sha** the results.

7 Conclusions

This systematic review shed light on the diverse landscape of studies of teaching and learning in science education research, encompassing a wide array of intended objectives, topics, and teaching methods. Our review results are presented with the intention to increase the transparency and accessibility of how SSI is actually enacted in science education research and thereby provide a benchmark for develo** SSI teaching practice based on peer-reviewed research, and also critically review and outline gaps in the literature that merit additional research. Consequently, our findings provide insights into the extent and the inherent variation in the implementation of SSI regarding objectives, topics, and methods. The systematic review focuses explicitly on how SSI is put into practice in the classroom, which means it examines how SSI is used in school settings. This emphasis on classroom practice indicates that there is a gap between the theories and research related to SSI on one hand, and its actual implementation in teaching practice on the other. This gap seems to be difficult to overcome, probably due to the break with traditional teaching traditions in science education that SSI promotes with its more progressive approach to teaching.

This suggests that there may be a discrepancy between the theoretical understanding of SSI, as presented in research, and its practical application in the classroom. Many studies support the theoretical foundation of SSI, which emphasizes the holistic integration of environmental, societal, and citizenship aspects; technology; and scientific literacy. Several researchers (e.g., Chowdhury et al., 2020; Roberts, 2011; Ryder, 2001; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler, 2014; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023) have advocated for this holistic approach. While there is strong support for the theoretical underpinnings of SSI, the actual implementation of SSI in educational settings seems to be lagging, and this gap is a concern for the science education research community at large.

One of the most important gaps that we found in our study was the link between SSI and society. An important conclusion is that links to pertinent societal issues, which in our study are included in democratic participation, were found to be the least frequent objective of SSI teaching. One consequence of this might be that the promotion of scientific literacy (Zeidler, 2014) and the development of the skills needed to use that literacy in real-world contexts (Ryder, 2001; Sadler, 2009; Zeidler & Sadler, 2023) will be less available to students if classroom practice takes place mainly in decontextualized traditional science education contexts. It seems that informal or place-based learning within arenas outside of school or outside the classroom, as pointed out by Zeidler and Sadler (2023), are indeed worth further exploration.

This means that topics suitable for SSI teaching must align with the actual real-world problem at hand. In a recent chapter on SSI in the Handbook on Research in Science Education, Zeidler and Sadler (2023) point out four specific important themes for SSI teaching; one emphasized theme is the use of place-based learning outside the classroom.

Furthermore, the inclusion of media is another theme mentioned as being of importance (Zeidler & Sadler, 2023), which can be closely related to the use of digital resources (see our take on this in the “Discussion” section).

To conclude, these two themes, as pointed out as important by Zeidler and Sadler (2023), do not seem to have translated into SSI pedagogy, as digital resources and outside world relationships were found in quite few studies of teaching and learning in our review of how SSI is enacted. Therefore, we argue that much more effort in develo** research and teaching in SSI should be directed toward how to cooperate with society, and by doing so, investigate how digital resources such as social media, applications, software, and databases can act as resources for develo** teaching practices that enact SSI.

To find the sought-after viable ways to emphasize SSI in teacher education (Nielsen, 2020; Nielsen et al., 2020) or to provide teachers with “more explicit guidance and support from education policymakers, teacher educators, and school leaders to facilitate their practice” (Chen & ** strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377 " href="/article/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y#ref-CR23" id="ref-link-section-d46656400e12875">2021, p. 11), we can conclude that a shift in research focus can be necessary. In order to complement and deepen the findings of our review, it may be appropriate to initiate studies that compare theoretical findings with practice through means that are closely linked to authentic teaching and learning contexts, e.g., by interviewing teachers or observing actual lessons. Based on our findings, we would suggest that future research should explore the following:

  • The relationship between teaching objectives and enactment of SSI in teaching practice. The literature promotes NOS and interaction with real-world contexts as viable means of implementing SSI. Our review shows that a more complex situation exists, and these particular objectives are emphasized to a lesser extent. Additional studies are needed to explore how such objectives can be aligned with or influence current curricula. Furthermore, the epistemological standpoints for science teaching practice could be challenged, and changed from Vision I to Vision II, to provide innovative means to incorporate SSI, including outlining their purposes in education. For example, how can appropriate teacher guidance be developed to meet these objectives? And what does democratic participation mean for students’ own citizenship?

  • The challenge of develo** new teaching topics. Is it possible to teach SSI only in the categories we have identified as the most common, or should research and teaching challenge this conclusion and search for new SSI topics? In addition, as much of the existing research has been concentrated in a few content areas (environment and sustainable development, and health and technology), develo** these further would also be of importance. For example, plastic pollution, chemicals in the environment, and the acidification of the oceans relate to environment and sustainable development but are not as prominent in the reviewed studies but are still relevant in society. In addition, individual agency or values affect people’s lives, which has an impact on how students view their own health and the technology that surrounds them. Therefore, in line with the aforementioned need to address current issues in today’s society, how can additional SSI topics from the real world be brought into science education research and practice?

  • The issue of teaching methods in congruence with an evolving education and society. Students currently have other preferences and ways of interacting than they did two decades ago. This is still changing rapidly, as (social) media and digital resources evolve. However, the real world exists, and by interacting with it, we, as citizens of the world, can be part of the decisions made through new digital media channels. In our findings, there is still a strong emphasis on teaching methods already known to be related to real-life activities in the classroom such as group discussion and role play. Less is known about how to challenge classroom practice to include the digital and media resources available to students in contemporary society and in school. Additional research is therefore needed to investigate how we can incorporate evolving changes in society, especially changes relating to the digitalization of society, thereby providing authenticity for students.

We hope that our review is a contribution to the quest to assist policymakers, teacher educators, school leaders, and teachers in their endeavor to implement SSI in science education research and practice. We also hope that fellow researchers will use our findings in their future research on teaching and learning to further explore, develop, and investigate our understanding of how SSI as a teaching approach is characterized, or will be characterized, in science education research.